David Cameron snubs my retrospective student loan hike open letter

Two weeks ago I sent the Prime Minister an open letter about the disgraceful retrospective hike in student loans. Those who started university since 2012 currently repay 9% of everything earned above £21,000 – this threshold was supposed to rise annually from 2017, but the Government has now frozen it.

The impact of this is substantial. It will leave millions, including many who’ve already now left university, paying £1,000s more for their loans than they were told when they signed up.

I have now received the Prime Minister’s reply, or more accurately, I have now received a response telling me he won’t be replying.

This isn’t just a financial and legal issue (though I have hired lawyers to investigate it), far more importantly it’s a moral one. This retrospective change is unfair, goes against all terms of good governance and risks damaging the trust young people have, not just in the student finance system, but in the entire political system.

That’s the reason I asked the Prime Minister to look, intervene and meet me to discuss how to mitigate the damage. The letter I sent has received widespread publicity, been massively shared on social media, raised much awareness of the issue and had huge support.

Instead of a reply from the Prime Minister, or even a member of the Cabinet, my letter is from Jo Johnson MP, the Minister of State for Universities. Not only that, but much of it is a simple cut and paste from the pro-forma response Tory MPs sent during the consultation – and of course its lack of specificity fails to address the vast majority of my concerns.

While Mr Johnson does invite me to meet him, he knows as well as I do, I have already done so – before the consultation, and I vociferously raised the concerns then. So while I will take up his offer and meet him again, I suspect I would have as much joy explaining the problems with this huge cost hike to a brick wall.

For reference a copy of my letter to the Prime Minister and the reply from Jo Johnson are below.

The Prime Minister10 Downing StreetLondon, SW1A 2AA12 January 2016

Dear Mr Cameron,

I feel compelled to write to you over the decision to retrospectively change the terms of student loans.

In 2011 I was appointed head of the Independent Taskforce on Student Finance Information. I worked with your ministers who said, unambiguously, that from April 2017 the £21,000 repayment threshold would start to rise annually with average earnings. This information was then communicated to students and formed a core part of the calculations about how much university would really cost them – including in student loan repayment calculators.

The decision to backtrack on this is hugely damaging. It means many lower- and middle-earning graduates will repay thousands more over the life of their loans.

However, even more important than the additional cost is the message this sends. The regulator would not allow any commercial lender to make a change to its terms this way. It is therefore surely wrong for the Government to do so – retrospective changes have always been seen as bad governance.

Of course there was a consultation before the change. I and many others responded to it. Yet only 5% of consultation responses were in favour of this change; 84% were against it – so I am confused why, despite such cross-society opposition, your Government pushed ahead with the retrospective change anyway?

As you may be aware, I have personally engaged lawyers who are currently looking at whether this change can be challenged legally. Yet this is just as much a moral issue as a legal one. A retrospective change will destroy any trust current and future generations can have in the student finance system, and perhaps, evenmore widely, in the political system as a whole.

The repercussions of this loss of trust may be far-reaching. Although I had reservations about the student finance changes made in 2012, I always believed it was more important to explain the practical realities of the system so no student was wrongly put off due to misunderstandings. But how can anyone in goodconscience now explain student finance to young people when the system can be unilaterally changed, even after they’ve signed their loan contracts?

I ask you to take a personal interest in this decision and look at reviewing it. Present and future generations must be able to trust the Government to keep its word on student finance.

I would also ask to come and meet you to discuss this issue, and invite some affected students, graduates and their parents. That way we can explain why we think this is so important – and to see if there is a way the damage can be mitigated.

Yours sincerely,

Martin LewisFounder of MoneySavingExpert.com and former head ofthe Independent Taskforce on Student Finance Information

Have your say

This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day. Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com.

On 6 April, we’ll see the biggest change to hit student finance since the new system launched in 2012. It’ll mean millions of university leavers will repay less, not just each month, but many (not all) will see the amount they repay in total reduced by £1,000s. While it affects almost all uni leavers to an extent,...

Student loans are a political hot potato and widely misunderstood. I recently blogged on why, bizarrely, cutting tuition fees risks hurting not helping most graduates and within the logic of that I explained it is predicted that 83% of university leavers under the newest English system won’t repay their loans in full within the 30 years before they wipe....

The news again has been full of talk about cutting English tuition fees from £9,250 to, say, £6,000. While psychologically attractive – as it reduces the perceived ‘debt’ – the practical impact is to take money off universities, risking the quality of education, and handing it to very high-earning graduates. I bashed out this explanation on my...

Should loyal customers be charged more than new ones? On the surface the answer is a simple no – but nothing is that simple. Many consumer marketplaces function because only some people embrace competition, and we need to work out what happens if we change that

Martin's Twitter Feed

Blog Topics

Archives

How this site works

We think it's important you understand the strengths and limitations of the site. We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong.

This info does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research on top to ensure it's right for your specific circumstances and remember we focus on rates not service.

We don't as a general policy investigate the solvency of companies mentioned (how likely they are to go bust), but there is a risk any company can struggle and it's rarely made public until it's too late (see the Section 75 guide for protection tips).

Do note, while we always aim to give you accurate product info at the point of publication, unfortunately price and terms of products and deals can always be changed by the provider afterwards, so double check first.

We often link to other websites, but we can't be responsible for their content.

Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion.

MoneySavingExpert.com is part of the MoneySupermarket Group, but is entirely editorially independent. Its stance of putting consumers first is protected and enshrined in the legally-binding MSE Editorial Code.